[Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Wed Mar 23 04:17:59 GMT 2011


This is now complete for the area west of Portland Oregon as a test.

http://www.paulnorman.ca/blog/?attachment_id=96 shows the difference.

About 99.8% of the data was untouched since it was imported. I checked the
other dozen or so ways by hand.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Chambers [mailto:jchamml at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:48 PM
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
> 
> I know of least one 46006 that I would consider a river (Tussahaw
> creek) , but doesn't have river in the name, but as bad as other NHD
> data I've seen is, this little problem will be small.
> 
> upstream
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> > If there are no objections to the retagging part I'll proceed with
> > retagging FCodes 46003 and 46006 as documented on
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup
> >
> > I will not be joining waterways at this time.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:52 PM
> >> To: 'Richard Welty'; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
> >>
> >> This is the view I subscribe to too. An example of two ways I would
> >> want to join would be
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68711710 and
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68710322
> >> These differ only in nhd:com_id and they're both really short ways.
> >>
> >> In any case, I'd like to make it clear that there are two separate
> >> parts.
> >> The retagging of the ways, and the joining of them. The first one is
> >> a serious issue, visible out to z8 in the rendering and hopefully
> >> uncontroversial to change. The second one is a less important issue
> >> that it seems more debate is required on.
> >>
> >> For the retagging, I've done up a table at
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pnorman/NHDCleanup which
> >> explains the changes I'm proposing. I should of thought of a table
> >> earlier
> >>
> >> Also, I need to empathize that any data edited by users since the
> >> imports won't be touched without manual review.
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwelty at averillpark.net]
> >> > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:38 PM
> >> > To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed cleanup: NHD "rivers"
> >> >
> >> > On 3/20/11 8:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> > > On 3/20/2011 8:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> >> > >> d suggest using relations to group ways that are parts of named
> >> > >> rivers rather than trying to combine the ways.
> >> > >
> >> > > If the only difference between the ways is that NHD assigns a
> >> > > different ID number to them, not combining them seems silly.
> >> > if the ids are consistent from one release to the next and there is
> >> > any notion of doing an update later, then combining them destroys
> >> > useful information.
> >> >
> >> > richard
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Talk-us mailing list
> >> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-us mailing list
> >> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




More information about the Talk-us mailing list